Language+and+Prejudice+Group+2

= Exploring Powerful Links Between Language, Prejudice, and Society = Group #2: Robert, Lauren, & Kate

__Lauren 10/25/09__: The information provided in the USA Today Article “Literacy Study: 1 in 7 U.S. adults are unable to read this story” was particularly shocking. It seems the general belief in the United States is that schools are working hard to not promote students who lack the basic skills of their grade level. However, we learn that between 1992 and 2003 the nation added 23 million adults to the population; from this group of new adults over 3.6 million lack basic literacy skills. If this statistic seems inflated or impossible, all one has to do is check out the "comments" page beneath the article. While these commenters are //literate,// many of their skills appear to be lacking. A scary side note: One commentator tells readers in an error-ridden rant about his successes as a high school teacher. “David Harvey, the president and CEO of ProLiteracy, an adult-literacy organization, says Missisisippi (one of the few states to see a rise in literacy) ‘invested more in education…and they have done innovative programming. We need much more of that.” **How do we get to this point?** As teachers-in-training it seems we are hyper aware of students who are struggling. Through our assignments we have the luxury of focusing and helping individuals who are struggling with literacy. We are able to arm a microscopic portion of the illiterate population with the tools they will need to become better readers. Every little bit does count, but **what about the masses of U.S. citizens who are not lucky enough to have this help?**

__Lauren 10/25/09__: “Srry, didt mean 2 exlude u” Looking at this sentence we can come up with a few assumptions. The writer may or may not be ready for professional work, they may spend a lot of time online, he or she may be substandard intellectually. This is a sentence I received in an email from a co-worker…a co-worker who was a superior to me at my publishing company job. If text language and speak is considered acceptable at a place where the written word is supposed to be cherished it seems we cannot be surprised when this language creeps into student language.

I really enjoyed John Przybys article “Dis maks my teacha cry”. As someone who refuses to use “text speak” (yes I spell out every “you”, “this”, “to”) I am often slightly offended when I find this vernacular creeping into more formal outlets. When grading my eighth graders’ papers I actively search for such errors. When discussing the lack of capitalizations, misspellings, and use of symbols in their formal writing students are often unaware that they’ve made an error.

I think it’s important to remind students of the differences between text and formal writing. This quote from Denise Karpelenia effectively boils down part of the problem. "That's the whole nature of academic writing," she adds. "There are no shortcuts. You don't abbreviate things." Just as students must learn to code-switch when speaking in class, it is important for us to make them cognizant of code switching within their writing. -Lauren

Robby (10/25/09) These readings, like the others, made me realize how often people degrade other languages in the classroom. We, as a class, can agree that code-switching is needed. **but what about the negative effects of classroom language****?** In these readings, I got to thinking how elite the academic language is. I understand that there is a reason for different types of languages, different dialects, different uses. But, **why not mix and match?** I hope that because I'm not using the biggest words, certain phrases or even the usual sentence structure for academia that what I'm writing is not only agreeable, but understandable. Same with legalese. I would never understand that, I would need someone to decode it for me. So as a teacher, sometimes the most important thing is learning to read all those big words, and at the same time, breaking them down into words that someone can actually understand, like a normal conversation. I think that's the only reason I do so well. I read words that are big, but can break them down with good comprehension skills into accessible words. And I like knowing what I'm reading. The brain should be like a thesaurus between languages, dialects and social contexts. Speaking is always something to worry about. I want to sound smart - not just in dialect, but in diction. None of my friends want to hold conversations with me if I speak like a textbook (although recently more and more texts are become conversational in language). Also, some pay attention more when we are in a heated debate, or when we scatter colloquial language and swear words throughout it. The same goes with oral presentations I want to do in class. As a teacher, even, we have to be able to allow learning to get done in class. With the eight graders now, my first lesson, my diction was too much to handle. Second lesson, I stuck to a normal vernacular, my language was grounded in their roots and then they understood everything just fine. The students have an oral presentation to do this week on the Bill of Rights and I wonder how they will speak and what they will say when it is their turn. I think there is the difference between sounding smart, sounding pompous and feeling comfortable in what you are saying and how you are saying it. I think this goes with the idea of whether I want to sound educated or pleasant. **Why not both?**

__Kate 10/21/09__: In our first assigned article, Baldwin (1979) describes language’s powerful correlation to private and public identities over time, telling your past while determining your future. I thought the following comment about opening your mouth to speak was especially insightful: “you have confessed your parents, your youth, your school…your self-esteem, and alas, your future” (1). Additionally, Baldwin (1979) examines language’s (social and political) implications in terms of black vs. white.

Baldwin (1996) continues examining the controversial relationship between language, diversity and power in a related article, his “A Talk to Teachers” from //City Kids, City Teachers//. He recounts our educational system’s unfair and erroneous representation of the upper and middle classes via a unilaterally “white” curriculum and language, which he refers to as “the conspiracy to make Negroes believe they are less than human” (223). **What are some specific examples of this inequitable representation?**

In response to these frustrations, it is important for school curriculums to present multiple perspectives and expose students to different dialects and codes. Regardless of the linguistic diversity in the classroom, teach Herman Melville, Emily Dickens, and Edgar Allen Poe (SE) but also read Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, and Langston Hughes (as different but equally valued dialects). We must consider//: Who is the writer, who is the audience, what is the purpose, and what is the context?// **Most importantly,** //**what are the implications?**// That is, we must question power realities, often perpetuated by language, that exist in and outside of our classrooms. **How do you address li****nguistic diversity in your classrooms?**

__Kate 10/21/09__: Regardless of how Huck Finn makes you feel, a good education does not exclude discomfort. While most people are in favor of diversity, we should be less concerned with offending people and focus on the authentic content and quality of our lessons. In the below-mentioned article, Schlesinger considers the many sensitivities and misunderstandings of race. The article argues that “feel-good history” risks the inaccurate portrayal of our past, and the best lesson is often the more uncomfortable or controversial (98). I whole-heartedly agree with Schlesinger that “the purpose of history is to promote not group self-esteem, but understanding of the world and the past…respect for divergent cultures and traditions, and unflinching protection for those unifying ideas of tolerance, democracy, and human rights” (99). Just because a subject matter makes students feel uncomfortable does not warrant removal from the curriculum. **What would we do about teaching slavery, civil rights, the Holocaust, Japanese American internment camps, Trail of Tears, etc.?** **Are we justified in sacrificing authentic knowledge for comfort?** Certainly, Obama would be appalled by such censorship!


 * General classmate responses:**

1) With all of the controversy around the language in the book but there are so many activities that students can do from reading the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. This video is testimony to this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzr_KXdyMok&feature=related . Edolla.

2) I agree that a "good education does not exclude discomfort." How else can we learn from past mistakes? We cannot protect our students from the harsh realities of the past; hopefully by exposing them to this knowledge, we can make for a better future (cheesy, I know).--Kristen

=
3) I, too, agree that "good education does not exclude discomfort." However, I really am not sure how I feel about "we should be less concerned with offending people and focus on the authentic content and quality of our lessons." Definitely an interesting point- I recently had a discussion with a friend that spurred additional discussions with several teachers from my school about their primary concern when teaching. Should we focus most on our academic content and our students' learning (after all, we're called "//teach//ers" for a reason) or on creating a safe and rich environment to which our students look forward to coming? I haven't come to a definite conclusion regarding the proper balance of the two... -Shana======

4) As I discussed in our classroom debate, I strongly believe that our history should not be censored. We can't pretend slavery didn't happen. All students should be somewhat uncomfortable when they learn the capabilities of hateful humans. If we do not learn about the horrorors of our country's past this behavior will be more likely to be repeated in the future. - Angela
 * Responses to our bolded questions:**

1) To Robby's post on using both classroom language and home language. I agree with you. I feel like it is very possible to use both home language and classroom language while in the classroom. I think it is necessary for students to be able to use their home language in order to construct and organize their thoughts, to express themselves. It would be difficult and frustrating to know what you want to say but then not what words to use. It is easier to code-switch once they already know what they want to say. And yes, sometimes, it is better to use home language than is to use classroom language. I feel like there can be a balance between the two, even in oral presentations. I've noticed that when using more complicated sentences to explain things confuses them but breaking it down helps them to understand what you are saying. This breaking down also helps them to learn how to break down these sentences on their own; eventually, they will be able to understand without a "translator."But I do feel that while students need to use home language to construct their thoughts, it is essential that they learn and know how to use classroom language. Right now, I have students who have no problem expressing their thoughts, some really good thoughts, in their home language but then have no idea how to code-switch into classroom language.-Tara

2) Kate, you make a great point of educators’ reliance on the arts. If we didn’t have literature or movies to present what you’ve coined authentic knowledge, how would we teach certain parts of history? What would a unit on the Holocaust look like without //The Diary of Anne Frank, Schindler’s List// or //Night?// Would students be just as moved without those depictions? A textbook certainly wouldn’t get at the humanity and emotion — or lack of — that is so intricately entwined with these issues. If we didn’t have other people’s stories, what do we have to teach with and learn from? I’m getting visions classrooms where students are left unchallenged and textbooks are more important than ever. Anyone else getting the chills? — Jen

3)"What kind of history do you have if you leave out all of the bad things?" -Arthur Schlesinger. How are students supposed to learn about slavery and the Holocaust or any of mankind's worst aspects if we take out any reference to uncomfortable moments in our past? I think we as teachers have a responsibility to teach intentionally discomforting material if we are trying to give students the power to think for themselves. We short change students by trading literature for fairy tales. - Bryan

4) Kate, I completely agree. I don't think that comfort should be a word used in a classroom. I'm not saying they shouldn't be comfortable or feel safe, but intellectually, they shouldn't feel at ease with everything. For centuries, the problem with history was that it was written by the victors. I don't know about many of you, but my elementary school textbooks had one line about the Trail of Tears. Luckily today, we have found other more obscure texts that are helping to re-write history. And today with the wealth of information available, history will be much easy to decipher by future generations. Should we deny them the horrors that happen around the world today because it might make them feel uncomfortable? I don' think so, it would prevent them from learning from our mistakes and our triumphs.

THANK YOU FOR SHARING!

//** Assigned articles: **

Baldwin, J. (1979). If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?// The Black Scholar, 27//, pp. 5-6. []

Language Myth #17 []

Dis maks my teacha cry []

Literacy study: 1 in 7 U.S. adults are unable to read this story []

Teacher wants to expel Huck Finn []


 * Additional articles:**

Baldwin, J. (1996). A Talk to Teachers.// City Kids, City Teachers//. New York: The New Press.

Schlesinger, A. (1998). The disuniting of america: Reflections on a multicultural society.// The Battle of the Schools//, 73-99.